The Wisconsin protests have shown how some doctors are seemingly willing to subvert their professional integrity to serve the political ends of government special interest groups. Under ObamaCare, when similarly trained doctors have to choose between practicing in their patient’s medical interests or in the political interests of their government paymasters, which side will they choose? And will you want this new breed of doctor taking care of you when you’re sick?

Interesting questions, but to be fair, the doctors handing out the notes were helping individuals, not burdening the individuals for the sake of the greater good. Hsieh links to me and says:

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse spoke with one of these doctors who was completely unapologetic for his actions, saying that it was “not dishonest” but rather “an ok thing to do” because it was in the interest of “social activism.”

To be extra accurate: I ask the man if what he's doing is "dishonest," and he says, "It's not dishonest. It might be a little social, oh, gosh, what do you call it?" I say "Activism?" He seems about to say one thing, the stops himself and says "It's an okay thing to do" then goes on to talk about how teachers matter a lot to him. He notes that he is genuinely "seeing" the patients (on the street corner) and they do have their symptoms. It's not the most explicit embrace and promotion of social activism. Indeed, he may very well be motivated by nothing more than a desire to help the nice teachers so they won't get in trouble at their jobs.

That said, I'm concerned about the general trend of medical ethics in the form of "social justice" ideology, if that's really what is going on. Is it?

It's not just medical ethics. It's everything. "Social justice" is permeating all soft subjects in academia, and it is exactly as Hsieh describes. It's also made it's way into most churches where it's used to teach leftism as a religious obligation.

I saw it when I worked in the Episcopal Church, I see it now in the Catholic Church, and it is endlessly evident in the postings from school chums in my Facebook news feed.

There is an article of faith among many of the highly educated (read: credentialed) that the poor exist due to capitalism. The fact that the actual evidence runs contrary to that conclusion seems to be lost or unnoticed.

I will bet Pogo treats twice as many patients a day as these activist doctors who probably spend half their time in meetings yakking about the supposedly under-funded public health system.

Btw - why would a medical school waste a school slot on an unfocused professional student like Patrick McKenna who had three college degrees before he decided to apply to medical school?? To me, it should have been obvious he had little interest in practicing medicine. He'll probably go to law school next.

Interesting questions, but to be fair, the doctors handing out the notes were helping individuals, not burdening the individuals for the sake of the greater good.

I think this is how things initially feel on the surface, but when we think it through it isn't true.

What I expect, and what most of us expect from medical professionals is truth. In fact, if doctor's routinely deceived us or others about our medical situation or the necessary medical remedy, all of us would be worse off in the long run. It is the same desire when I get on a scale, I desire to say less than I actually weigh, that would help me feel better about myself, but in reality it only causes me to be lulled into a false sense of security about my weight.

What I really need from my scale is complete and total honest and candor about my reality.

For a doctor to write sick notes to someone who is not sick is to undermine the system of medicine in the long run, why should the employer accept a sick note, why should anyone. Why should I accept my doctor's advice, I don't know what his real agenda is, and so it begins. Worse, you cannot contain deceit and wrongdoing, we think we can but the more we justify it in one area the more that thinking leaks through all areas. I need to change the patient's chart so I don't get sued, you see it's all for the greater good, why should I be potentially penalized for taking a risk on this person's life, it needed to be done...

The writer of the article reveals with this phrase that he's woefully misinformed or, more probably, lying.

Obamacare certainly will not make the government the "paymaster" of the doctors. Rather--and this is the point on which legal challenges to the bill are being mounted, of which I'm sure Hsieh is aware-- Obamacare, a clone of RomneyCare in Massachusetts, will require those without insurance to buy private insurance from private insurers.

In other words, it keeps the for-profit insurers in charge as the gatekeepers and, uh, "paymasters" and managers of the if-you've-ever-been-sick-we-won't-cover-you death panels, just as they are now, to no evident objection by those who favor our disastrous free-market insurance model.

If you don't like those who aid or participate in the theft of money from individual taxpayers, why aren't you out there calling for the prosecution and imprisonment of the entire management structure of all the major banks who are the architects of our financial disaster of recent and present time?

Sanner said his intent in signing notes was to perform a public service. He said that's why he and his colleagues were stunned when they returned home Saturday night to find their e-mail inboxes filled with profane messages saying the doctors should be ashamed and should go to jail.

The doctors also got swamped by hostile phone calls and Facebook messages from across the U.S., he said.

"We're not political activists. We were surprised at the nationwide organized vitriol that has come our way so quickly," he said. "Apparently we hit a nerve. I've been a doctor for 30 years. I kind of missed when politics got this viral, this national."

He said he and his colleagues planned to meet Sunday night to figure out how to deal with the firestorm they touched off. The consequences could extend to their employer, which said it was investigating the events.

In order for Socialized medicine to work, the future medical professionals must be brainwashed/conditioned to the idea that medicine IS a social justice program.

This allows them, with a clear conscience, to be able to deny medical treatment to some people (like the elderly or other groups who have been targeted by the government for elimination) in favor of others who have been given special status.

When the government is in charge of Medicine and uses it as a social wealth redistribution program, (From each according to his ability, to each according to his need) it must have compliant Doctors and Nurses who will cooperate. The new ethics of socialized medice replace the old ethics of the Hippocratic oath.

This is what social justice indoctrination of future medical practitioners is all about.

Given how many Christians seem to find the plain as dirt statement, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,"**, mystifying--a conundrum--it's no wonder many also don't understand Jesus' essential message.

**(It means: they won't. If this statement were made in modern vernacular, it would be: "Rich men will enter Heaven when monkeys fly out of my ass." Now, is that so hard to understand?)

"Social justice" is permeating all soft subjects in academia, and it is exactly as Hsieh describes. It's also made it's way into most churches where it's used to teach leftism as a religious obligation.

I saw it when I worked in the Episcopal Church, I see it now in the Catholic Church

A physician cannot serve two masters. The doctor will learn to lie to himself that he is really being the patient's advocate when he denies care.

Exactly my point. Social Justice as ethics allows the Doctors and Nurses to do evil in the name of social justice as dictated by the government, while they have convinced themselves that they are being good and ethical people.

Well, from the point of view you are trying to push, he would probably call on the teachers union members, who are doing much better in salary and benefits than their private sector compatriots, to give heavily to make things equal.

"One of my religion teachers at the University of Dayton (a Catholic school) was a Presbyterian minister. We spent a whole week on "Was Jesus a Marxist?" What do you think the answer was?"

It would have had to have been no, as Marx did not live when the books of the New Testament were written, and thus there was no doctrine of Marxism. Heck, at the time the New Testament was written, "capitalism" didn't exist either.

isn't it the very mission of the Episcopal and Catholic (and all other Christian) churches to further the cause of "social justice?"

No. Not even close.

I will pray that dbq does not burn in hell for all eternity. Matthew 25:

34“Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37“Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40“The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’

41“Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44“Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45“Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Freeman Hunt and DBQ are all over it. What we are witnessing is but the inevitable result of decades-long leftist control of the educational machinery of this nation K-12 plus the post-modernist leftist fever swamps of university life. This leftist socialization process that Bill Ayres and his acolytes have succeeded in installing in the nation's teaching curriculum K-12 to be taught by useful-idiot education majors largely derived from those in the lowest quintile of SAT scores/college GPAs, to be absorbed osmosis-like by young impressionable minds, in conjunction with the almost total strangle-hold the crypto-communist left has on university faculties in the social sciences is now bleeding over into medical training--the most "socialized" of the sciences in terms of being integrated with government at all levels and dependent upon federal funds.

This idea ignores fact that many people do not work and contribute to their full ability. I support charity that keeps people from starving and freezing in the streets. But we're not taking about that.

This redistribution idea sets up perversions that are harmful to our society - such as heavily taxing hardworking people to subsidize the lives of people who are just slogging along doing barely enough to get by.

When charity is voluntary and local, as discussed by Christ in the Bible, it’s easier to direct your charity to people who really need it – and avoid just subsidizing the lives of those who just really need better incentives to get moving.

And government needs to direct its activities to improving the economy making it easier to people to work productively rather than to burden employers / employees with their socialistic redistribution nonsense. In the end, all the government’s ‘help’ is just going to make more people poor.

Like so many specialists these I'm sure bright doctors simply don't think outside their discipline. It's in the air. It's what all their peers believe. So it's what they believe. They simply swallow the disastrous end justifies the means argument that's in the air all around them. Whatever they are as specialists they are totally irresponsible and even unformed as general human beings.

How impolite of you to remind the forgetful of this aspect of Jesus' teachings.

I think I heard they were trying to get this, and the Sermon on the Mount, and pretty much anything attributed to Jesus himself, excised from the Bible as inauthentic heresy inserted later by Marxists in the seminaries.

The teachers' choice is to go to work, or go without pay and risk being fired. "It's the same choice faced by everyone in the world who can't use someone else's earnings to pay the bills," said Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)."Writing a phony sickness excuse is fraud," she said. Doctors are frequently under intense pressure to do this, or to misstate diagnoses, to 'help' patients who want to collect sick pay, insurance payments, disability, or other benefits to which they are not lawfully entitled. For doctors to advertise their willingness to do so is, however, distinctly unusual."Physicians who sign their name to a false statement are compromising their professional integrity," said Orient, although the Wisconsin union supporters seem to believe that the end justifies the means. The penalties can be very severe; for Medicare or Medicaid fraud, they include delicensure, draconian fines, and lengthy prison terms.

Is this the same medical ethics practiced by those great humanitarians, Donald Berwick and Ezekiel Emanuel?

You'd get a better deal from the firm of Himmler, Heydrich, and Eichmann.

Robert Cook said...

Freeman, isn't it the very mission of the Episcopal and Catholic (and all other Christian) churches to further the cause of "social justice?"

Last I looked, the Catholic Church doesn't garnish your wages or send you to jail if you don't pay what it considers your "fair share".

Given how many Christians seem to find the plain as dirt statement, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,"**, mystifying--a conundrum--it's no wonder many also don't understand Jesus' essential message.

It just means it's tougher, not impossible (I know they don't teach analytical thinking at the Daily Worker); you have to understand things aren't what's important in life. At no point does Christ say you're evil if you're rich.

In any case, I don't see the Lefties complaining about the evil rich Kennedys, Clintons, or Obamas and their millions.

FLS: You seem to assume that if people aren't supporting big government charity, that they are not being charitable at all. False assumption. Many lovers of small government practice private charity.

Where in the Bible does God ask us to form large, centralized governments to take care of the poor? He doesn’t, it’s a directive to each of us as individuals. ("Give to Caesar what is Caesars" doesn't cut it - he was just directing us to be good citizens. That wasn't about charity).

I don't think you're going to get a reward in Heaven for voting to heavily tax Other People to support the poor.

Given how many Christians seem to find the plain as dirt statement, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God,"**, mystifying--a conundrum--it's no wonder many also don't understand Jesus' essential message.

Let me ask you this, how easy do you think it is for a poor man to get to heaven? Did the individual's wealth or lack thereof have anything to do with the point Christ was making here or maybe was it something else?

About Matthew 25...

Is this about how you treat all the world in general? Or something else? Is there any language in the passage that might indicate that the test of genuine faith is something about how we related to the people of God?

Beware folks..This is only the tip of the iceberg. Several years ago the American College of Physicians issued a new charter that said the good of society should take precedence over the needs of the individual patient. The"social justice" agenda has deeply penetrated academic medicine.

"Social justice" is woven into the curriculum at the UW School of Medicine and Public Health. The "Community Service Programs," for example, have a Service-Learning component, whose mission is "[S]ocial change and social justice through the service provided by students as well as through their lifelong commitment to community engagement."

Here, the medical school links to the "Critical Multicultural Pavillion," a resource for all things social-justicey.

Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

The AAPS: fighting "socialized medicine" since 1943. Per their notions of medical ethics, accepting Medicare patients is immoral:

http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/princip.htm

NON-PARTICIPATION PROGRAM OF AAPS

[Contrary to section 1801* of the Medicare law (Public Law 89-97, 1965), recent legislation forces physicians to perform acts that were formerly voluntary, if they wish to treat Medicare recipients. Given the reality of governmental compulsion, physicians protest duress per minus.

Under these circumstances, very few physicians have actually implemented the AAPS Non-Participation Program, although we believe that (1) it is right and proper and that (2) with the support of a critical mass of physicians, Non-Participation could halt the destruction of private medicine.]

Reaffirming action adopted by the Board of Directors, July 31, 1965:

It is our belief that anything that is morally right is ethical. It is further our belief that any measures that tend to lower the standards of medical care are evil and anything that is evil is unethical and immoral. Experience in every area of the world where it has been tried has demonstrated that governmental assumption of the responsibility for medical care (socialized medicine) for the general population (as opposed to members of the armed forces and former members with service-connected disabilities, to whom there is an extraordinary and recognizable obligation) has resulted in deterioration of the quality of medical care thus creating an effect opposite to the alleged and stated intent of the amendments. Thus the effect of the law is evil and participation in carrying out its provisions is, in our opinion, immoral.

Therefore, it is our belief that the only proper course for physicians is to:

1. Decline to serve on boards or committees established for the purpose of implementing, interpreting, expanding, and administering the Social Security Amendments of 1965; 2. Decline to sign papers or execute forms necessary to implement the provisions of the Social Security Amendments of 1965; 3. Emphasize to their patients that there is no intention of preventing any patient from receiving needed medical care but that such care must be rendered under conditions that are acceptable to both patient and physician. 4. Clearly and emphatically explain to their patients that the policy of Non-Participation is in the best, long-range interest of patients, physicians, and good medical care.

Some percentage of Wisconsin's teachers are liars and cheats. They should be terminated.

Will tax payers be reimbursed for services not rendered? Yeah right. Are many of Wisconsin's school age children subject to the vagaries of unprofessional and irresponsible adults? If you're a fraud at the state capitol, you're a fraud in the classroom.

Why subject your children to liars and cheats? Bust this union. Home school!

I'm concerned about the general trend of medical ethics in the form "social justice" ideology, if that's really what is going on. Is it?

It's even worse than that. Because I first started blogging about my wife and a quack, I had to delve into medical ethics and what I found happening in the hospitals was mind-blowing. I've got too much to say on it, so I'll have to do a blog post for you later. Prepare yourself, though, because when you add "social justice" into the NewAge mix, it's about as kooky - and deadly - as they come:

A physician cannot serve two masters. The doctor will learn to lie to himself that he is really being the patient's advocate when he denies care.

So tell me Pogo, what exactly is your billing policy. Do you have a sign in your office that says: "There is no set fee for my services, pay what you can afford, I do not accept insurance or government medical programs of any kind. None will be turned away for inability to pay."

John Rawls constructed his theory "social justice" in order to address some real problems with utilitarianism. However, his assumptions include the belief that the inequalities we are born with and into are "unfair" and must be corrected. In this way,he justifies the violation of fundamental individual rights (in particular liberty and property) in order to correct this purported "metaphysical injustice." what is ironic is that his theory of "social justice" has strengthened arguments for sacrificing individuals for the good of the whole -- which was a key objection he had to utilitarianism.

The alternative is to recognize that inequalities at birth are not a moral issue (no choice is involved) but simply a fact of nature. The key to peaceful, prosperous human interaction are the legal protection of inalienable individual rights to life, liberty and property--period.

It starts out all about love and peace and flowers that pick themselves. But inevitably it ends up with forcing Peter to pay Paul, and favoring Peter because he has better contacts than Paul, then killing off Paul, well, for no particular reason.

isn't it the very mission of the Episcopal and Catholic (and all other Christian) churches to further the cause of "social justice?"

This was certainly the whole message of Jesus Christ.

Mr. Cook, I didn't think you're reading the entire bible, certainly not the entirety of the New Testament.

As an example you have quoted this:Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God

And forgotten this (the next verses):When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

And that's not to mention the entire context of the story (the rich young man who was determined to prove to Jesus his righteousness by his deeds.)

This deserves a spot right after Freedom Is Slavery, and War is Peace.

Let's look at the radical Commie United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.shtml

Option for the Poor and VulnerableA basic moral test is how our most vulnerable members are faring. In a society marred by deepening divisions between rich and poor, our tradition recalls the story of the Last Judgment (Mt 25:31-46) and instructs us to put the needs of the poor and vulnerable first.

The Dignity of Work and the Rights of WorkersThe economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God’s creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected--the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to the organization and joining of unions, to private property, and to economic initiative.

A physician cannot serve two masters. The doctor will learn to lie to himself that he is really being the patient's advocate when he denies care.

So tell me Pogo, what exactly is your billing policy. Do you have a sign in your office that says: "There is no set fee for my services, pay what you can afford, I do not accept insurance or government medical programs of any kind. None will be turned away for inability to pay."

Freder/Montaigne/Alpha wants everybody to forget that payment would be rendered April 15 of every year and those who "could not afford to pay" would be hauled into Tax Court (where one is presumed guilty) by those 1045 IRS agents The Zero wants to hire and prosecuted (I doubt Pogo does that).

Service would be denied any and all who aren't leading "useful lives" in the eyes of Donald Berwick.

Did the dimes Andrew Carnegie passed out, and the libraries he established, make up for those killed and wounded when he broke the union at the Homestead Works?

FLS, I don't think I've ever witnessed you twisting someone's words more horribly. And that's indeed saying a lot. You should be ashamed of that comment. You're definitely smart enough to know the difference and are just trying to score pathetic points.

Did the dimes Andrew Carnegie passed out, and the libraries he established, make up for those killed and wounded when he broke the union at the Homestead Works?

FLS - Stick with the point. Many supporters of "small government" are also supporters of private charity. Americans are a very generous people. Your assumption that if we don't have big government charity, we won't be following God's direct to feed and clothe the poor is false and unfair.

Do you think we don’t notice that you always change the subject when you can’t win the point?

Did the dimes Andrew Carnegie passed out, and the libraries he established, make up for those killed and wounded when he broke the union at the Homestead Works?

The dimes and libraries are irrelevant, are they not? As long as Carnegie accepted Jesus as his savior and repented his sins he could go to heaven. At least that's my understanding.

And let's not overdramatize the Homestead strike, please. Two workers and two Pinkertons were killed in a firefight, it's not like Carnegie was feeding steelworkers into the ovens or starving millions of peasants to death in the Ukraine.

My dad did WW II, Vietnam and went to Korea shortly after the the conflict resolved but still....

The military was promised health care by the military for life but then they shunted them off once they were age eligible for MediCare and he gets treated as if he never prepared for his own health care coverage.

He thought he won the lottery when he found a physican that would see him, and sometimes they act like my dad is a damn charity case.

It was the worst in Chicago.

Ironic my brother took him flying over Wisconsin in a bi-plane something he has always wanted to fly because he has about three years worth of flying hours in a hell of a lot of other stuff.

My brother's fiend let my dad fly it at 86 and he frickin' had a heart attack.

Chicago told us they couldn't do anything-I'm thinking his Medicare status might have had something to do with it.

He went back to Colorado and the guy that knows and loves him-did a pacemaker and he's still alive two years later.

btw-the cadet he sponsored is going up in space shortly; piloting the space shuttle for the second time.

Uh NO Robert Cooke, the Message of Christ was, “The Kingdom is at hand.” “I am the Truth, the Light and the Way.” The job of a church is to REDEEM THE WORLD, not spread “Social Justice.” Try reading the Gospel’s not just the Sojourner’s Website….

Charity, Social Justice is a BY-PRODUCT of the Church, not its mission.

I'm not trying to dump on you but, seriously, you (and Meade) have NO IDEA what you're dealing with once you enter this area of thought. Freeman said "'Social justice' is permeating all soft subjects in academia, and it is exactly as Hsieh describes" but - coming at it from the "spiritual" perspective - I'd say he's just scratching the surface. Academia and medicine have been turning minds to mush for so long it's wild. Look at this and tell me there's anything even remotely related to medicine about it.

"Bringing up hot-button legislation while the Democrats are gone is another arrow in Walker’s quiver. Though the Wisconsin constitution requires three-fifths of the senate to be present to pass fiscal legislation, a simple majority of 17 members constitutes a quorum for other bills in the 33-seat state senate. So the 19 GOP senators who remain in Madison can pass any number of bills while their Democratic colleagues are on the lam, and Republicans are a majority in the assembly, too. “They can hold off, but there is a whole legislative agenda that Republicans in the senate and assembly can start acting on that only requires simple majorities,” Walker warns.“If they want to do their jobs, and have a say, they better show up.”

So while the Wisconsin Dems are still in the throes of their latest hissy fit and holding their breath until they turn blue.... the Republicans will just go ahead with other business without them and pass all the legislation they want.

"Where in the Bible does God ask us to form large, centralized governments to take care of the poor? He doesn’t, it’s a directive to each of us as individuals."

Well, actually, it's a command to all who would follow him, not merely a suggestion for each individual would-be Christian to take under advisement.

We are a representative Repbublic, and thus--in theory, if not, as it turns out, in practice--we are self-governing and can decide for ourselves what kind of society we want and how best to manage resources. Thus, if social programs are enacted that help the poor and uneducated, it is a decision by those of us who make up this society that this is a good thing to do.

The reason the wealthy spend millions of dollars to propagandize us against programs that would benefit the poor and uneducated is because they fear--they know--that the American public does, by and large, support public spending on education, on programs to help feed and clothe the poor, on programs to provide medical care for those with little or no means, etc.

This is not about a tyrannical centralized government trying to force "good works" on people...just the contrary. Our government is becoming more tyrannical, is increasingly "representative" only in the most insignificant, superficial, and symbolic forms, and once it has stamped out any vestige of "public choice," we will not see forced charity imposed on us but more of what we already have: theft by the wealthy few of all that the rest of us have.

If your medical ethics serves social justice, you must accept that at times it will not serve the individual patient in front of you.

You cannot serve both a population and a person.

If you try to serve the state, you will need to lie to the person, or admit to them that you are withholding carenot for medical reasons but because the state has determined it for them and it is out of your hands.

And if that is the case, why bother seeing a doctor? You could just as easily call up a bureaucrat and be told no. Or get declined online. Much cheaper.

What I expect, and what most of us expect from medical professionals is truth. In fact, if doctor's routinely deceived us or others about our medical situation or the necessary medical remedy, all of us would be worse off in the long run.

helping individuals, not burdening the individuals for the sake of the greater good.

That is absurd. The doctors are burdening the many individuals who pay taxes for the illegal gain of the few.

btw-How is submitting fake doctor's notes to illegally claim sick pay from a govt payroll in the common good? Would you do the same? If not, why not?

The teachers should have stood on principle and forgone the sick pay to make a moral and ethical point. That would have been an unassailable position. Instead they proved they are union whores and now we know their price.

The reason the wealthy spend millions of dollars to propagandize us against programs that would benefit the poor and uneducated...

I'm not aware of any propaganda on this issue. I am aware that the wealthy (those in the top 5% of wage earners) pay around 80% of Federal income tax so its possible there is some resentment that so much is expected from so few.

I think very few are opposed to providing to the truly indigent, however, as noted above, the burden to fund those programs falls on an ever smaller percentage of the population.

If you are truly concerned about a growing aristocracy and turning the country into an oligarchy, continuting to look to the top 1-5%to fund the operations of our society is a damn fine way to create one.

the burden to fund those programs falls on an ever smaller percentage of the population.

This is the inevitable result of the concentration of wealth and income in fewer and fewer hands. As the middle class is squeezed out of existence, the resulting income disparity resembles that of a Third-World dictatorship.

FLS;As long as Carnegie accepted Jesus as his savior and repented his sins he could go to heaven. At least that's my understanding.

Your copy of Matthew doesn't go all the way to Chapter 25?

While I accept the proposition that a Christian is NOT by definition a Democrat or Republican, let alone a liberal or conservative, you are misinterpreting the Bible. And BTW, John 3:16 comes after Matthew 25.

Again, as with Mr. Cook (and as much as I treasure Matt. 25:31-41) you really need to put individual verses in a much broader Biblical perspective. Or at least talk with this woman

American blacks have long had a great mistrust of Medicine, having been denied care, lied to, and experimented on. Now the rest of us will know how they feel.

Man, you guys are going too fast for me now. It's like you're all catching on, or letting me know how much you already understand, all in one thread. I've got to run some errands but I'm having a hard time leaving, like trying to leave a good radio program.

The article has this quote: UW Health released a statement saying it couldn't confirm whether any of its doctors were involved in writing notes. It added that any doctors who distributed such material did so of their own accord and not on behalf of the university.

Somebodies ass should be in a crack here. My guess it is the Head of the Residency program who was at the square along with her residents.

Pogo, correct me if I miss something.

1. Residents are not full doctors. They only can practice as part of a supervised program, normally with location limits, and their insurance is caveated on that basis.

2. The university is taking the position that the actions of the residents (i.e. practicing medicine in the square amd rendering medical/legal opinions) was out of the scope of their employment

3. The Head of the residency program, knew that this out of scope activity was going on and that it was not sanctioned by the University, or the Insurance carrier.

Thus both the residents and the head of the program are subject to both state and university sanctions and the insurance provider should issue a warning of a rate increase because of increased liability

"...both the residents and the head of the program are subject to both state and university sanctions and the insurance provider should issue a warning of a rate increase..."

You're right. This could turn out very, very badly for the doctors involved. It depends on who gets pissed off, or how many people complain. In a lefty state it could blow over. But they may have picked precisely the wrong time to do this.

Althouse had it correctly pegged; these guys seemed to think of it as street theater, like giant paper-mâché heads.

But acting as doctors fundamentally changed the game. They used their licenses to further a blatant fraud.

It's a stain on their names, on UW Med School, and on doctors as a whole.

Whether WI sees it that way is another story, but I am certain no small number of patients is disturbed by politics serving as an excuse for doctors to lie.

In my observation, the medical profession tends to rise to the intelligence level of its customers. A Doc with mostly uneducated patients provides less specialized healing procedures and does what he/she can to milk the system for money. So for the uneducated such a "socialized medical practice" done mostly by assistants and using computer odds for the patient's age and racial groups generated by a Watson-like IBM computer may seem little different. But to the educated and savvy patients such an inhuman system is going to be fought fiercely...and there you have your Tea Party's origins.

Residents are not full doctors. They only can practice as part of a supervised program, normally with location limits, and their insurance is caveated on that basis...The Head of the residency program, knew that this out of scope activity was going on and that it was not sanctioned by the University, or the Insurance carrier.

Residents can apply for a license after their first year of post-graduate (i.e. residency) training and once they've passed Boards Pt III.

Phil 3.14 said. Residents can apply for a license after their first year of post-graduate (i.e. residency) training and once they've passed Boards Pt III.

OK, but their insurance doesn't cover that work and I bet their school enrollment has restrictions on outside medical practice. Both things they violated.

with these video's on the net, they may always have to practice on the public dime. Any malpractice carrier who has a good risk evaluation practice is going to want to put a kicker on their premium because of their past record of medical/legal fraud.

As if hedge fund managers were created out of nothing. As if those guys didn't have to start at the bottom of the ladder and work their way up. They're great at what they do. There is nothing wrong with concentrations of wealth as long as it doesn't lead to concentration of power. All I've heard is that the wealthy are powerful because they have special interest groups that help them keep their wealth. Where are the feudal estates? The serfs?

"Freeman, isn't it the very mission of the Episcopal and Catholic (and all other Christian) churches to further the cause of "social justice?"

NO!

This was certainly the whole message of Jesus Christ.

INCORRECT!!!

To Robert, and all others that are under the mistaken idea that Jesus Christ would encourage the type of social activism we see today -

It is my opinion that Jesus Christ encouraged his followers to spread the word of the Gospel. The Gospel is NOT modern social activism. The goal of spreading the Gospel was so that all men and women had the opportunity to choose between eternal salvation, or not.

There is no reference to doing anything whatsoever in terms of the COLLECTIVE in the Gospel - it is about INDIVIDUAL salvation.

Anyone that says that Jesus was a liberal, or promoted modern social activism, is not to be believed. They are simply another in a long line of deceivers, also outlined in the Gospel/Bible.

If you do not believe what the Bible says, or you really don't understand the intended mission of the church, please, don't presume that its about the collectivist 'social justice' scheme that relies on jealousy and theft to satisfy its premises.

Why all the focussed animus on Wall Street? The US Government and anybody else with a 401(k) fund has a vested interest in seeing the stock market right itself and not founder. That's not really so hard to see is it?

Even hardcore lefties should understand that future claims on tax-deferred retirement accounts will fund a hell of a lot of beloved social programs.

If you really want to understand what social justice in medicine is about you might want to consider Dr. Paul Farmer's work in Haiti or read his book "Infections and Inequalities: The Modern Plagues," to get a sense of why some are trying promote when they claim that health care is a basic human right.

That is entirely debatable. Sure, there are medical products and manufacturers, but practitioners of medicine aren't exactly delivering a product any more than teachers do. Lawyers produce "work product" but what they actually do is to enable things in a process. Hell, even patent law distinguishes a product claim from a process claim.

Have at it! And, for extra credit, explain how, in your view, its a RIGHT.

It's not a right. Access to it may be found to be so though. There will always be healthcare for the indigent. The problem as I see it is a movement to towards an unsustainable European model where everybody is entitled to the same (and largely gets the same) healthcare.The left's mistake is to bless the poor with noble status who are worthy of "free" care through subsidy. I recall a Sullivan blog post a while while where somebody was shocked SHOCKED! to learn that the poor would even cancel their subsidized health care under certain circumstances to channel the money elsewhere. Human nature is what it is.

My old program director, from back in yon radio dj days, also hosted the afternoon show on our classic rock station (opposite of me on the active rocker...which was always odd). He knew that he was leaving at the end of August, so in February, he started talking about a local cult called The Curl (completely fake).

The Curl had various odd things about them, but were both very NewAgie and had gotten themselves intwined in local politics. Long story short, he started reading their hate letters (just a tad pre-email) and such live on the air.

Finally, on the last day, right in them middle of his last day on the air, he had a bunch of us in the studio to "interrupt" his broadcast as the The Curl finally came for him. The amount of noise we made without actually damaging the studio or equipment was pretty amazing, actually.

Then...dead air. For something like four or five minutes. About five minutes later cops from the city, county, and state showed up. I don't remember actually seeing them hop out with guns drawn, but a couple of the other jocks do.

"It's not a right. Access to it may be found to be so though. There will always be healthcare for the indigent."

Glad that's your conclusion, but I sense you are not convinced.

No one is denied basic health care in this country, au contraire, illegals are treated at emergency rooms all the time. And its not like I don't recognize this problem - I think we all need to back up a bit and acknowledge the illegal comes first, before the healthcare request/event of said illegal. A discussion for another day.

Things like speech, free association and the ability to move about freely are RIGHTS. In the course of exercising these things, you do not necessarily impose any obligation upon anyone else (unless you're Ritmo).

If you argue for or conclude that health care is a right*, you will most certainly impose obligations on others. Where do you think the money/labor/services would come from?

If you said 'another American', you would be correct.

If you take this a step further and apply this false concept* to free speech for example, you could say that your right to speech would impose obligations on others to supply you with a venue, audience, etc. and everything else that goes along with it, all at someone else's expense.

It's not only medical school. The MBA program I just graduated from last year had a "business ethics" course requirement. The entire course was basically "corporate social responsibility" which pretty much reduced to corporations having a requirement to serve the community and provide health care and high wages to employees.

Not a word about honesty in business...ethical approaches to marketing, etc.

Friends of mine once shot an amateur movie, and I learned why it's important to get permits for filming: so the authorities know what you're up to. This bunch of high school guys thought their script was a great action flick about a sniper in a parking structure at U of M. To this day, the one friend can still hear the click of the deputy's revolver right before hearing, "Hands in the air. Turn around. Very slow." He suspects that if he had had the "rifle" in his hand at the time, the deputy might've dropped him right there.

"Then...dead air. For something like four or five minutes. About five minutes later cops from the city, county, and state showed up. I don't remember actually seeing them hop out with guns drawn, but a couple of the other jocks do.

The medical profession knows that it is partly to blame for the prohibitively high costs of some basic care, which in some cases is life or death.

Strictly controlled licensure, limited access to education --these are all very guild-like activities enacted to maintain both high levels of competence AND to maintain a limited supply of practitioners, for very understandable reasons.

FLS and Cook demonstrate the exact sleight of hand rhetoric I mentioned.

They take the Christian command to charity and turn it into a command to State power.

But State power and charity are not the same. The first is extraordinarily dangerous. It is also much more clumsy and ineffective than the latter.

Power is a tool of men who are both good and evil. State power is absolute and always ultimately exercised by force. You cannot increase State power for the use of good without increasing it in equal measure for the use of evil. Whatever apparatus of power you put in place can be used to any end.

Additionally, because State power is absolute and because it is not as susceptible to challenge as, for example, economic power, it naturally attracts the worst of men. There are many exceptions, but largely it is men who love power and wish to impress their visions on others who seek out the power of the State.

The State does not love you. The State does not care. The State is raw power, and you cannot hope to ride that tiger forever.

My son asked me last week if I had any airchecks laying around, especially the more memorable moments like that one. I do, but they are all on minidisc (lol) and I have to dig out the crate. Something like fifty or so covering almost 7 years of shows and concerts.

I did manage to find both my last solo demo CD and the JJ & Mac demo we did for a gig in Atlanta. While some of the material is dated (like T.W.A.T, ie Lipton Tea and TWA Airlines, or Crouching Tiger, Hidden Drag Queen), my college-aged son and his friends thought they were funny.

OK, but their insurance doesn't cover that work and I bet their school enrollment has restrictions on outside medical practice. Both things they violated.

True, but licensed residents can purchase their own insurance (not likely). The residents aren't "students", as in "UW students" (though that does touch on some longstanding legal issues.) Having said that many, residencies (and their accrediting bodies) put restrictions on "outside clinical activities"

PS I used to be a Family Practice residency director.

PPS In this case I bet the actions of the residents and faculty is in sync with the political viewpoint of the Medical School and University. Its the legislature, who holds the purse strings, that may be po'd by this activity.

And again, the page was down when I looked Saturday, back Sunday. They may have some sort of technical difficulties rather than deliberately pulling your site. When it's sporadic like this, the first thing I suspect is lousy programming.

And before anyone thinks I hate programmers, I am one. If you last very long in this field, you learn pretty fast that the first place to look for the cause of any problem is your own code.

If nothing else, the physicians signing the excuses are likely to be facing more trouble than they expected.

I think that they just didn't think it through. It is not clear whether or not most of them have the requisite license to be doing this outside their hospital in the first place - at least the residents. Someone above suggested that they could be licensed themselves, but are still very likely operating under the license of their supervising physician.

I think that they also may find themselves with malpractice issues, or at least their employer may. They almost assuredly don't have the paperwork required by their malpractice carrier when treating patients - and if they weren't "treating" patients, then the excuses they wrote are even more totally bogus.

The other thing, of course, is that they participated in committing fraud against the State of Wisconsin. Maybe they thought that it was a little white lie, done for all the best reasons (i.e. their idea of social justice).

Interestingly, their attempt to hide their affiliation with their employer (such as using a common gmail account) may end up as indicia that they knew what they were doing was fraudulent.

And, someone suggested that there is some sort of fraudulent billing statute in Wisconsin similar to the federal False Claims Act. While criminal, this may also be civil, and subject to qui tam action (unless the state actually files suit). In this case, the errant teachers using the doctors for excuses may be directly liable, but the doctors may be on the hook as aiding and abetting (or in the civil context, inducement and contributory liability).

Should be interesting. I don't see the physicians getting disciplined, per se, but rather, these other areas of exposure would seem more likely.

Not only are the teachers part of the State, their collective bargaining is just a furtherance of State power. The State automatically deducts the union dues, the State requires the teachers to be in the union, and then the union pays off the politicians that favor it in the State.

There is no balance of power there. One is just an extension of the other.

The competing interests here are between the unionized teachers and the taxpayers. Until now, the unionized teachers have been colluding with the State to rip off the taxpayers. We'll see what happens now.

That is why the average American is unable to accumulate a nice nest egg.

This is also why many middle-agers are easing back, working fewer hours, earning less. Why earn more only to pay higher taxes into the govt maw while the left lectures and hectors for more. more. more.

Not only are the teachers part of the State, their collective bargaining is just a furtherance of State power. The State automatically deducts the union dues, the State requires the teachers to be in the union, and then the union pays off the politicians that favor it in the State.

What the State giveth, the State can take away. Otherwise who is Walker? I'm just trying to keep things clear here.

Jesus and a mandate of social justice are not a team. Jesus and loving others as you love yourself are a team. That giving love is aimed first at widows and orphans in need. The Chick-fil-A owner named Cathy is a model of that if you want one. But giving love also mandates "No Freeloading, if you don't work, then you don"t eat." The acknowledgement of God as the creator of all men does make a community of loving kindness possible among believers. Too bad people assert that God died just when we needed him the most.

What is going on in Madison is important precisely because it is defining who is the State. Look at the obvious symbolism of the struggle happening not in the streets but in the Capitol Building. It's like fighting over Jerusalem!

The State isn't something to be shunned or destroyed or ceded to thugs -- it's something that should be downsized but definitely cherished. I'm at odds with people who think The State should whither away -- the last person who seriously suggested that was Karl Marx.

You know if they were smart they'd make 2012 all about those 5 items and dare the GOP to stand against it.

I respectfully disagree. Esp. the collective bargaining of state employees. Esp. when that same collective bargaining is a big part of why the states are in such a financial bind.

Keep in mind that somewhere around 1/3 of all state and local workers are unionized, versus 1/20 for the private sector. So, when anyone comes to you talking about collective bargaining, what they are really saying is that they are in favor of government workers living better than the people paying taxes to support them. That they support the haves instead of the have-nots, the insiders over the outsiders, etc.

The health-care argument isn't going to fly either, because it means, esp. in these times of massive budget shortfalls, that those who work the hardest to pay for their health care will have theirs reduced so that those who work the least for theirs can have similar health care.

We already have minimal old-age pensions for most with social security (and, again, why should those who worked hard to put money away pay for those who didn't), and the problem with food in this country is that the poor are too fat, not too skinny.

So, as someone on the right, I would say, bring it on. Esp. the collective bargaining, and we can then point out how much better the unionized government workers do than the people supporting them.